Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

Replica


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
560 replies to this topic

#481 PhilOhio

PhilOhio

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 5903 posts

Posted 15 September 2008 - 12:31 PM

QUOTE (TD. @ Sep 14 2008, 10:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

...Phil,
I knew you would finally get around to saying something that would allow me to understand why you continually post about my story without adding any new information. You expect my story to meet the standard of proof that is used at the Central Intelligence Agency.

This thread has nothing to do with me providing new information. It's about your unsubstantiated claims of having found new information. Tom, we only expect you to meet the standards of proof universally adopted in the academic world, the scientific community, and the business and legal communities. You don't have to jump through any hoops. As a matter of fact, CIA functions according to the same standards. It's just called truth and common sense, I guess...nothing exotic. You have not adhered to any such standards. You are not allowed to make up your own set of self serving flexible rules and standards for defining fact and expect anybody else to adopt them, for the sole sake of accepting your unsubstantiated theories as fact.

I have to apologize up front; I can’t do that and expect to be taken as a serious author and historian.

If you cannot do that, then you will indeed not be taken seriously as an author or historian. I know you very much want to be thought of that way, but you haven't done it with your first post in a nationally circulated magazine. This lack of being taken seriously is precisely what is happening, because of a lack of facts. You are rigidly defending a position which has totally collapsed under the magnifying glass, and this is evident to everybody. Why prolong the pain? You are tarnishing future credibility and prospects for anything great, and supportable, which you may write later. By riding out the Titanic sinking, you brand yourself as somebody who will never admit error, even honest error, come hell or high water. In the academic world, this ends a guy's prospects. I don't want that to happen here; honest. Too few people have any interest in this stuff already.

My arena deals with a much higher level of proof: beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal matters and a preponderance of the evidence in civil matters.

Your arena? Wow! You are in an "arena" of one, with an author of one, and a cast of one, and a critic of one. There is no publicly accepted level of proof to which you subscribe, or at least none has been displayed so far. Just about everybody here has expressed reasonable doubt, because you give them no alternative. You provide no proof of any kind. You need to give people some reason to believe your theory. They'd all like to learn, but you need to convince them you have something new in the way of VERIFIABLE facts. Of those, you have none. And if there is none, why would anybody accept it? Answer: Some here will accept it, because it sounds good and they are not critical, skeptical thinkers accustomed to working only in the world of objectivity and, perhaps, legalistic standards of truth.

Your playing Internet lawyer is not amusing,

No TD, I'm no Internet lawyer, nor any other kind. But I do have a mind which has spent many years doing the same things good lawyers do, digging for facts, being self critical so as to avoid acceptance of something else, and demanding a high standard of truth before making sweeping statements as to what it is. I see no evidence of that sort of thinking in your writing so far. But I say "so far" because nothing has to be forever. And everybody makes honest mistakes.

...especially because you have nothing to add to the history of the Thompson.

I have made no effort to add anything to the history of the Thompson here. You are trying to change the subject. I have only been trying to prevent something which is not a true, valid part of Thompson history from being accepted as fact. And that is a proper and fair role for anybody who questions your theories.

And you’re not very good at playing lawyer.

Well, TD, I think I'd put more stock in such an opinion coming from somebody qualified to offer it, if it mattered at all. But since I'm not playing lawyer, it doesn't. I am playing critic of logic and purported truth. And my opinion does count there.

It is over Phil.

I guess this means you have run out of ideas for trying to support the unsupportable and explaining away that which cannot be explained away. That's reasonable, because you are at a logic and proof dead end. It's so much easier to not start down a dead end road when the sign says "dead end", and a lot of local people with inside konwledge assure you that the sign ain't lying. This has been going on for years, vis a vis the "unbroken succession" theory. I want to reiterate that I think the genesis of this whole article was an incorrect assumption that if only such a thing as the SAR article could be published, it would go down as historical fact. This one is backfiring, because people with better Thompson historical knowledge than mine are not accepting it, and will continue to not accept it, because it is groundless. But it does not even require that high level of Thompson knowledge. It only requires careful, critical analysis of what is claimed. No adequate proof has been offered to support it. Not even offered. Just the same statements are repeated endlessly. This only moves the recipient's perceptions through progressive levels of questioning, to skepticism, to eventual disbelief. All standards of objectivity were abandoned before the article was even written, as far as I can see. It was an attempt to prove a point which cannot be proven. For anybody who fancies himself as a budding Thompson historian, this is not a very good start.

My story is self authenticating,

That's a pretty good term. laugh.gif I really like it. If you can get some kind of patent or copyright on the concept, you can make millions selling or licensing it to criminal defense lawyers. So far, in some 4500 years of human history, I don't think anybody has had much luck in making that one work very well. Barack Obama is certainly trying. But you're right about one thing. It is just a "story", and an entertaining one with lots of new anecdotal information. Those are, of course, different from verifiable documentation and hard facts.

...stating all sources of information.

If that is true, why is there not one footnote, and no bibliography, and no reference to repositories where objective documentary records can be found to independently prove what you claim? We all want to see that government report which proves the whole "unbroken succession" theory, according to your claim here. I want to know, right now, where do I get a copy and what is the title? Shouldn't that "lay to rest" the whole question, in your words?

It is the most current information on this subject.

Or so you were hoping when you submitted it to SAR; and also the final word. I think this thread is going to have to stand as the final word, for quite some time, unless or until actual new facts are discovered.

Actually, I believe it is the only information on this subject with documentation and facts.

Now, this is getting pretty deep. After all the discussion here, and all your evasion of questions on documents and facts, you are still claiming to have presented documentation and facts (by your own unique definition, of course), when no such things have been offered (by the rest of the world's definitions). George Orwell, give us some help here. wink.gif

You bought the magazine;

Yes I did. That was the only way I could find out what you were saying. You led all of us to believe you had uncovered new information on "unbroken succession" and we would have to read the article to find it. I bought, I read, and nothing new was there, except interesting anecdotal information on the Kilgore years. But there was no meat, regarding the key issue we have debated here for years. You figured the article would be the trump card. It wasn't.

your opinion is noted.

My "opinion", as you put it, is not an opinion but a declaration of observable facts; in this case, a lack of facts. My opinion, or theory, on a lack of facts is checkable by any other observer. If they go out, objectively search, and also find no verifiable new facts in your article, then they are in a position to accept my conclusions as their own. And once again, all of this would change if there were new DOCUMENTED AND PROVABLE FACTS. But don't bother to write another article on the same subject unless there are actual new facts.

Now please go out and spend some of this spare time you seem to have an abundance of and find one fact to add to the succession of the Thompson. That would be something we could all take pride in...

Well, TD, I'm not a historical researcher and have no interest in becoming one. I'm a technical doer and sometimes writer. I'll let the snide "abundance of time" thing pass, wink.gif but no, I don't have much of it. I do spend a good bit of what is left over here. And I do take pride in what I do and write. That's because I make sure it is factual and supportable. If I discover something is not accurate or on the mark, I instantly acknowledge the error and correct it. I have not seen you do that on even one occasion, as right now. I recommend it. That is how you become credible, not by hanging on to something that is wrong and everybody objectively evaluating it can see that.

Like I've been saying, there's a lot you can do, but synthetic fact creation is something to stay as far away from as possible. This article has not been a good start in that one narrow area. It's narrow, but extremely wide and significant in the credibility department.



  • 0

#482 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3471 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 September 2008 - 01:22 PM

QUOTE (reconbob @ Sep 15 2008, 01:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
This may apply to both sides of the argument here - I'm not sure.
When somebody says they did something, ok fine, but did they actually
DO it? We know, for example that Numrich used the bullet logo, because
we see it on guns.
Trast, told his lawyers to tell me that his "rights" to the Thompson
name and logo, which he received the trademark for in 1984, extended
back to 1917. He was telling his lawyers to repeat the
shameless BS/hype that was part of his sales pitch. His "rights" go back
to 1984 when he received the trademark. I don't think it would be
reasonable to say that Trasts statement was "documentation" that
West Hurley AO and the original Bridegport and New York AO were one
and the same.
From the Kahr website: (try not to laugh)

"Quality is never compromised in a Thompson. Every Thompson submachine
gun is made in accordance with the strictest international manufacturing
standards, and is individually tested at the factory firing range. The
quality-conscious Auto-Ordnance staff is committed to assure your
confidence in purchasing a Thompson submachine gun."

I do not believe Kahr has ever made, or has the ability to make, or
the licenses to make, or even wants to make a true full auto
"submachine gun". It just sounds good to say this.
Its hype. It salesmenship. Its BS. It would not be correct or reasonable
for some present or future researcher to assert that this is documentation
or proof that Kahr manufactured full auto Thompson submachine guns.
And yet, perhaps 30 years from now when the trail is cold someone will
be doing just that...

Bob


Bob,

Regarding the receivers Numrich used to assemble TSMG's in the 1950's, the bullet logo was already roll stamped on them, as they came from the crates he purchased from Willis. Nobody has reported any NAC Mamaroneck, New York address stamped brand new bar stock receivers made after 1944, or a West Hurley addressed TSMG receiver before 1975.

Kahr's shameless advertising only reinforces why a company's public relations campaign cannot be a substitute for the historical record, as well as common sense.

Edited by Arthur Fliegenheimer, 15 September 2008 - 01:30 PM.

  • 0

#483 PhilOhio

PhilOhio

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 5903 posts

Posted 16 September 2008 - 12:17 PM

Arthur, Bob,

Here's something which, I guess, slipped past me in Bob's earlier post:

"Trast, told his lawyers to tell me that his "rights" to the Thompson
name and logo, which he received the trademark for in 1984, extended
back to 1917. He was telling his lawyers to repeat the
shameless BS/hype that was part of his sales pitch. His "rights" go back
to 1984 when he received the trademark. I don't think it would be
reasonable to say that Trasts statement was "documentation" that
West Hurley AO and the original Bridegport and New York AO were one
and the same."


I'm focusing on Bob's first sentence. Here's an excxellent example of how such things, in the hands of the lawyers, become all garbled. Lawyers don't always have the time to research everything their clients tell them, on any subject. (Sometimes it leads to their serious embarrassment in the courtroom.) So I guess they have to assume some of it is true...when it isn't always. Then a lawyer repeats it in some sort of court filing or threatening letter to the client's opponent. "Documentation" begins to take shape, in the eyes of the consumer, when in fact it is nothing but more lawyer B.S.

The Kahr lawyers' threatening letter to importers of the recent Chinese drums carrying the word "Thompson" is an outstanding example of such pure crappola. And if a lawyer says it, the recipient is expected to shake in his shoes. laugh.gif In such cases, maybe he should instead begin planning how to nail the lawyer's arrogant client for unlawful harrassment and interference in his legitimate business venture.

Documentary proof of something is not just whatever self serving statement some party decides to set to paper, sign, witness, and slap a lot of official looking seals on. Valid documentation requirements for business deals and transfers of ownership is quite clearly defined, legally, and understood in the world of business law. It is not made up out of thin air on an ad hoc basis for each new situation which arises. Any real businessman and any competent attorney understands all this. Nobody has to explain it to them. But for somebody who understands none of this, who has never been in the business world, and has never had any significant experience working with lawyers or the court system, I guess it is all a big mystery, and there is the temptation to just jump in and begin applying the word "documentation" to any piece of paper bag with words scrawled on it.

But the learning process really speeds up the first time somebody like that gets their fingers slapped hard. I'll bet Bob could tell us some stories of how that can go. wink.gif

The most common way these things get sorted out is when a lot of money is riding on the outcome, as in a multimillion dollar rights infringement or false advertising suit. Then the opposing lawyers can afford the research time to really nail it down. In the case under discussion, that would be pretty easy. It would be easy to trace and document the ownership changes between the original General Thompson group and his partners, as it progressed to Maguire et al. And it would be child's play to trace it from Numrich/Ira Trast to Kahr Arms. In between, they would draw a blank. There would be lots of interesting stories, maybe a few newspaper articles, unsubstantiated claims and hearsay, but no valid official documentation record of the type commonly understood and accepted by all parties who participate in such things. Otherwise, it seems like we would have seen them by now. Enough people have been digging, over the last 40 years or so. But still, you never know. It might be out there in some dusty box full of file folders which nobody thinks are important.

Such a box, literally, could have found its way to George Numrich among those crates from Kilgore and the Willis group. And once George belatedly filed for the AOC name, thinking the old documents were no longer important, he might have ditched them. Nobody was contesting what he was doing. For that matter, documents might still be in a store room in West Hurley. Ira Trast could be correct about the continuity going back to the beginning. We can't automatically assume he is only blowing smoke. But as of right now, we don't know either way, because nobody has presented any valid documentation. His claim is totally unproven.

It does seem as though Trast's lawyers might have been able to refer to a very thin folder containing documents proving "unbroken succession" if it existed. It would contain only a few sheets. The transfers would have been General Thompson's AOC to Maguire, Maguire group to Kilgore, Kilgore to Willis and partners, and this group to Numrich, I believe. (Not sure I've got all that right, regarding where Willis fit in.) I think you could call this an abstract of the intellectual property rights...or maybe that term is only fairly applied to such a record in court files or state regulatory records.

I do recall reading on this board, a few years ago, a newspaper article somebody posted where at least one of these changes was reported to have taken place in a specific law office in a specific town on a specific date. This may have been the first transfer. This would certainly have been recorded in court records for that county or state. So I would tentatively accept that at least one link may be verified if researched. But certainly none of the others...so far.
  • 0

#484 Bridgeport28A1

Bridgeport28A1

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 973 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

Posted 16 September 2008 - 01:29 PM

Numrich Gun Parts openly advertises and is selling the Replica "The Crosby Co. Buffalo. NY " L Drum which is marked Thompson Submachine Gun. They also sell another Thompson marked L drum which has the Thompson bullet logo.

There was mention of a reported threatening letter sent to importers of the "The Crosby Co. Buffalo. NY replica" drums because they had the words Thompson Submachine Gun on the drum. If Kahr was successful in getting The Crosby Co. Buffalo. NY dropped from subsequent replica drum productions, any significance that Numrich is selling the The Crosby Co. Buffalo. NY marked L drums.

Any significance relating to this thread that both Kahr and Numrich are both selling Thompson items that have the Thompson bullet logo or is the manufacturing of Thompson marked items the potential infringement?

Does the time frame of the manufacture of the Thompson bullet logo drum which were made during the high capacity magazine ban make a difference with any potential infringement of Kahr claims?

Was Kahr around manufacturing semi-automatic Thompson during the magazine ban ?

Ross

Edited by Bridgeport28A1, 16 September 2008 - 04:03 PM.

  • 0

#485 reconbob

reconbob

    Technical Expert

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2305 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 September 2008 - 04:49 PM

I would guess that since Kahr bought the Thompson/Auto-Ordnance
West Hurley from Numrich that some formal or informal agreement
exists about selling "Thompson" products. I would think also that
Numrich/GPC supplies Kahr with barrels and perhaps other parts
as well, so they have an on-going working relationship. Apparently
Kahr threatens everyone except GPC/Numrich.

Bob


  • 0

#486 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3471 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 September 2008 - 07:12 PM

QUOTE (PhilOhio @ Sep 16 2008, 01:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Arthur, Bob,

"Such a box, literally, could have found its way to George Numrich among those crates from Kilgore and the Willis group. And once George belatedly filed for the AOC name, thinking the old documents were no longer important, he might have ditched them. Nobody was contesting what he was doing. For that matter, documents might still be in a store room in West Hurley. Ira Trast could be correct about the continuity going back to the beginning. We can't automatically assume he is only blowing smoke. But as of right now, we don't know either way, because nobody has presented any valid documentation. His claim is totally unproven.


"Regarding the bullet trademark, if a company registers a trademark, it is theirs forever. They never have to reregister it. If they stop using it or allow others to use it without their permission and without protest, they loose it to the public domain. In the case of the Thompson bullet trademark, that is exactly what happened. It became public domain. Many people started using it on their replicas including me. Now for someone to re-register the trademark, it must be claimed that no one else was using it or it becomes a fraudulent registration application. Numrich did not claim they were using it on the Thompson Submachine Gun . Wouldn't that have tipped off the Trademark Office researcher! Instead they put it on an M1911 .45 pistol until it passed the Trademark Office. If Numrich Arms had purchased Auto-Ordnance, they would also own the trademark and would not have had to reregister it. By reregistering the trademark, Numrich admitted that they did not own the original Auto-Ordnance Corp.

If the West Hurley Corp. had been an assignee of the original and a LEGITIMATE successor in interest, they would not have needed to apply for this otherwise abandoned trademark in 1984 "

THOMPSON TECHNICAL
by Douglas W. Richardson

---------------------------


Registered Gun Trademarks: Thompson

Word Mark THOMPSON
Goods and Services IC 013. US 009. G & S: FIREARMS, INCLUDING CANNONS, MACHINE GUNS, SPORTING ARMS, GUN PARTS, PISTOLS, SHOTGUNS, RIFLES, SUB-MACHINE GUNS AND GUN GRIPS. FIRST USE: 19170000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19170000
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 73491525

Filing Date July 25, 1984
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition May 28, 1985
Registration Number 1360435
Registration Date September 17, 1985
Owner (REGISTRANT) AUTO-ORDNANCE CORPORATION CORPORATION NEW YORK WEST HURLEY NEW YORK 12491
Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Attorney of Record DAVID L. JUST
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL-2(F)
Affidavit Text SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR).
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

  • 0

#487 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2952 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 September 2008 - 10:12 PM

Arthur,
Bringing back to life an old post. When was it, two years or so ago you posted this?

I do like what your doing. I am sure you can see some obvious inconsistencies in Doug's work based on the filing with the US Patent and Trademark Office. However, be suspect of everything you have posted regarding this excerpt. Just to get you started, I would do a little research regarding the first sentence.

I do look forward to hearing about what comes out of your Trademark research. I am sure you will find the answer quite interesting. Keep going on this subject; don't wait on others to do the work for you.

Bridgeport 1928,
I have never researched the Kahr/Numrich relationship, but it would not surprise me to find an actual ongoing relationship. I do feel confident Kahr knew exactly what they were buying when they acquired the West Hurley Auto-Ordnance Corporation. From the corporate standpoint, the due diligence would have been easily performed. However, this is an area that really does need to be explored.

reconbob,
I understand Kahr Arms has ventured into the realm of Post Sample Thompsons. I do not know any details and doubt any Samples have left the factory. It would be interesting to see what the future plans are in this area.

I agree with your thoughts about advertising "puffing." However, don't forget, General Thompson in the early years of Auto-Ordnance had a few issues in this area.

Philohio,
QUOTE
The transfers would have been General Thompson's AOC to Maguire, Maguire group to Kilgore, Kilgore to Willis and partners, and this group to Numrich, I believe. (Not sure I've got all that right, regarding where Willis fit in.)

May I suggest you re-read Mr. Helmer's and my work so you will not have to guess when you post a half a page of nonsense with statements like the above. Don't thank me for pointing out the obvious. May I suggest you contact Arthur and see if you can help with the trademark research. In all seriousness, I have complete confidence both of you will resolve this question.


  • 0

#488 PhilOhio

PhilOhio

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 5903 posts

Posted 17 September 2008 - 12:04 PM

TD says:


Philohio,

QUOTE
"The transfers would have been General Thompson's AOC to Maguire, Maguire group to Kilgore, Kilgore to Willis and partners, and this group to Numrich, I believe. (Not sure I've got all that right, regarding where Willis fit in.)" END QUOTE

May I suggest you re-read Mr. Helmer's and my work so you will not have to guess when you post a half a page of nonsense with statements like the above. Don't thank me for pointing out the obvious."


TD, I must apologize for being forced to say to say that you are light years from being justified in equating any of your writings with the mostly objective research done by Mr. Helmer and with any reference book he has written. It's an apples and oranges thing. You have done this here more than a few times, since the SAR article appeared; I guess that was the origin. Helmer doesn't do what I have highlighted below, nor does any other recognized historian.

So the one thing in my post where the exact sequence and detail was not important, and about which I consequently said I was not sure, was the only thing vulnerable? What about all the rest? Suggest away, but you are still refusing to respond to anything substantive regarding that nagging lack of facts and the building of an adamant argument on quicksand. You haven't budged in more than three years, and continue to argue a case based on thin air and conjecture. That's what Kahr makes their "Thompson" advertisements out of.

Once again we have this absurd circular logic, where you say I should just read your previous writings, which will show me why what you are repeating is true and what I am saying is "nonsense". laugh.gif You really seem to be hung up on this concept. I leave the conclusions on my criticisms for somebody else to make, but I'm not wondering how most people would handle it.

I like your excellent suggestion, to review previous writings, but to see where all these unfounded conclusions and disinformation got started and how, about 2.5 years later, the same old stuff we had been reading on this board was repackaged into a "new" SAR article which was supposed to reveal the truth about Thompson "unbroken succession". I have highlighted in blue the key areas which show where your thinking went seriously astray. There's no need for me to comment on each instance of it, as it's mostly the same thing; trying to magically transform personal opinions and guesses into historical facts which don't exist; assuming, hypothesizing, galloping to unwarranted conclusions, and thereby seriously misleading the reader. This could be a case study in how not to write a fair and historically objective article.

In digesting all this, the reader should also take special note of the general phraseology you use, trying to steer the reader down the path of accepting your "facts" as the only true word, that you have thoroughly studied all of this, there can be no conclusions but yours, implications that you are a researcher with academic quality credentials, and your piece should stand as the unchallenged historical record. That might be fair, if there had been a genuinely objective effort based on fact and verifiable proof; but there wasn't. The only way a guy can become accepted as a legitimate historical research writer is if he follows the rules that all legitimate historical research writers follow. The first one is to knock off the padding of articles and pet theories with all the "I think", "it is obvious", "one can assume", "so-and-so would", "the most likely way it probably happened...", "I ain't heard nothin' to the contrary", "everybody knows", "we can expect", and all the rest of that...expletive deleted.

And now, let's go back to 3 December 2005 for the original revelation of the True Word, on the old Machinegunbooks board
.


QUOTE (TD. @ Dec 3 2005, 05:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
As usual, Arthur like's to put his slant on everything in an attempt to guide some members away from all the facts. There is really no right or wrong answer to this issue. However, one must first have all the facts before one can draw any conclusions. I offer this to the new board members who may not have spent time researching this subject on the board or in the several books published on the famous Thompson Submachine Gun.

First, a little history on the subject: For the sake of brevity, I am going to omit the early Warner & Swasey days in Cleveland, Ohio and the production of the Model 1921 Thompson by Colt Patent Firearms MFG CO. I will start the journey with the Auto-Ordnance Corporation under President Russell Maguire, the time when all the WWII Thompsons we have come to enjoy were manufactured by Auto-Ordnance and Savage Arms. In March 1944, the Auto-Ordnance Corporation under Russell Maguire was re-organized and a new parent company emerged named Maguire Industries, Inc. All assets pertaining to the Thompson Submachine gun became a division of the parent company; this division was titled the Auto-Ordnance Division of Maguire Industries. The assets of this division were placed in storage and sat dormant for the next few years. In 1949, Kilgore Manufacturing, Westerville, Ohio, paid $385,00 to McGuire Industries for all the remaining assets of what now had become the Auto-Ordnance Division of Maguire Industries. Kilgore had the intention to resale the now former Auto-Ordnance Division to the Egyptian government because officials at Kilgore thought the Egyptian government wanted to manufacture the Thompson Submachine gun. This deal was done with future manufacturing as the stated pretext.

This is where you have to make your decision about the continuing lineage of the Thompson Submachine Gun. I submit that even today $385,000 is a lot of money; imagine what it represented in 1949. I think is ridiculous to think Kilgore paid that type of money for a few crates of parts and old machinery? Given the money involved, I submit the legal department of one of these parties drafted a contract of sale. I expect it was a very simple contract assigning all rights to the Thompson Submachine Gun from McGuire Industries to Kilgore Manufacturing. To take it one step further and again given the amount of money involved, I am sure Kilgore would have expected the Egyptian government to have performed some type of due diligence prior to making any future deal so clear title and rights would have been important issue to Kilgore. In addition, I have never heard anywhere that McGuire Industries retained any rights to the Thompson Submachine Gun or ever claimed any future rights to the Thompson Submachine Gun. If you can make this link between Maguire Industries and Kilgore Manufacturing, the rest of the story is very easy to follow.

Unfortunately for Kilgore, the deal with the Egyptian government never came to pass. Kilgore then sold all the assets of the Auto-Ordnance Division of Maguire Industries to former Auto-Ordnance Corporation Executive Fredrick Willis at a loss. In a nutshell, Willis got what Kilgore purchased. Willis was in or had been in the gun business. Willis certainly would have done some due diligence to know exactly what he purchased. In October 1951, George Numrich purchased the former Auto-Ordnance Division of Maguire Industries from Willis. Like McGuire Industries above, there is no indication that Kilgore or Willis would have wanted to or did retain any rights to the Thompson Submachine Gun when it left their respective hands. It is also well known that George Numrich knew how to conduct business.

The lineage from Cleveland, Ohio to West Hurley, New York is what it is - intact. I suggest anyone with additional interest see an article by Ray Bearse, titled, The Thompson Submachine Gun, Weapon of War and Peace, published in the 1967 edition of Gun Digest. At the end of the story, George Numrich in a discussion concerning the development of a new semi-auto Thompson stated, to wit: Numrich states that, since his company holds the patents, trademarks, etc. on the Thompson SMG, it is doubtful if any other company could produce a Thompson of any kind. What is important about this 1967 date is none of the questions heard now days were an issue; Colt Thompsons were selling for under a $1000 and the West Hurley Thompsons we see and own today were just a dream. In addition, I have never heard anything that indicated George Numrich was anything other than an honest businessman. Given George Numrich's statement back in 1967, I think it is safe to assume he acquired the total assets of the former Auto-Ordnance Division of Maguire Industries.

Now you have a much more complete picture laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif of how the lineage of the Thompson Submachine Gun came to pass. It really doesn't make any difference how Roger Cox or other noted authors describe a West Hurley Thompson. We are not talking quality; we are talking ownership of the Thompson Submachine Gun and the continuing lineage of General Thompson's dream. Numrich Arms Corporation never owned or claimed ownership of the Auto-Ordnance Corporation, New York, New York. What they did purchase, several owners down the chain, was the Auto-Ordnance Division of McGuire Industries, Inc. and all rights to the Thompson Submachine Gun. The Auto-Ordnance Corporation, New York, New York discarded the name Auto-Ordnance Corporation and became McGuire Industries, Incorporated. Don't get hooked into the trap of following the corporation names. Corporation names and re-organizations are easily done. Always follow the business enterprise and rights this will lead you to the right place.


I guess I would have to interject, "Says who?"

To understand what was going on here, all you really have to do is read what I highlighted in blue. And I admit to increasing font size on those latter things which tickled my funny bone.

So this 2005 post morphed into a major article in a major firearms publication, saying all the same things above, with the addition of a considerable amount of new anecdotal information on the Kilgore years, but providing no basis for any of the core conclusions on corporate continuity or verifiable intellectual property transfer, while claiming otherwise. It's an opinion piece pretending to be historical fact. If it is allowed to stand unchallenged, after awhile new people begin to accept it as fact. That was and is Tom's intent, as he frankly admitted in the very first paragraph. My own intent is to suggest that such new people, and anybody else in the future, should read with a very critical eye, as the key conclusions simply hold no water. Just about all the words highlighted in blue, above, can be covered by one word, "conjecture". Webster defines that differently than "history".

I note that we have reached the point where there is no more effort to try to explain away my specific criticisms of the empty "unbroken succession" theory and the SAR article. My last post is now "a half a page of nonsense". That is a concession speech. Dead end. No more ways to explain why the "unbroken succession" argument should be accepted as fact, when there is not even fresh new smoke behind it. I'm supposed to yet again read what TD wrote before, because it is still intended to stand as fact, the final word. I think not.

What's this all about? This is what happens when somebody publishes a fanciful historical piece, it is submitted for that time honored peer review, and it falls on its face. But when it happens in the academic or scientific community, and the flaws are recognized by all, rarely would the author try to ride out the storm and continue to endlessly insist that black is white and it is in fact possible to spin straw into gold or make the cold fusion experiment succeed. That generally spells the end of a professional career. The two cold fusion guys could explain it, and they were trying to play it straight. I'm sure TD was also trying to play it straight when he expressed his opinions in 2005. Now we have moved to a place where the reasonable analyst could not possibly reach those earlier flawed conclusions. So to still cling to the same baseless conclusion is...well, the reader can fill in that blank.

  • 0

#489 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3471 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 September 2008 - 03:11 PM

QUOTE (TD. @ Sep 16 2008, 11:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Arthur,
Bringing back to life an old post. When was it, two years or so ago you posted this?

I do like what your doing. I am sure you can see some obvious inconsistencies in Doug's work based on the filing with the US Patent and Trademark Office. However, be suspect of everything you have posted regarding this excerpt. Just to get you started, I would do a little research regarding the first sentence.

I do look forward to hearing about what comes out of your Trademark research. I am sure you will find the answer quite interesting. Keep going on this subject; don't wait on others to do the work for you.

reconbob,
I understand Kahr Arms has ventured into the realm of Post Sample Thompsons. I do not know any details and doubt any Samples have left the factory. It would be interesting to see what the future plans are in this area.

I agree with your thoughts about advertising "puffing." However, don't forget, General Thompson in the early years of Auto-Ordnance had a few issues in this area.
.


I am sure you will characterize your SAR article as "old" two years from now. It will surely be equally as dated.

For General Thompson's advertising to approach Kahr's for egregiousness, he would have to have claimed a TSMG shot the apple off the Kaiser's head in 1918.

Now as to the ® by the THOMPSON bullet logo:


For a trademark registration to remain valid, an Affidavit of Use must be filed:
(1) between the fifth and sixth year following registration, and
(2) within the year before the end of every ten-year period after the date of registration.

The registrant must also file a Renewal Application within the year before the expiration date of a registration.
Assuming that an Affidavit of Use is timely filed, registrations granted PRIOR to November 16, 1989 have a 20-year term, and registrations granted on or after November 16, 1989 have a 10-year term.
This is also true for the renewal periods; renewals granted PRIOR to November 16, 1989 have a 20-year term, and renewals granted on or after November 16, 1989 have a 10-year term.


"If the holder of a registered trademark has used that trademark continuously for five (5) consecutive years, prior to the date of its registration, and the trademark is still in use in commerce, the right of the owner to use that mark is incontestable." 15 U.S.C. § 1065 [Lanham Act, § 5] 1947."

You said:

***..."When forming a new corporation to manufacture the Thompson and other firearms, the filing for new trademark protections prevents all the unnecessary problems that may arise down the road from any lack of maintenance on the original trademark registration."...*** TD Apr 2 2006, 08:34 AM

Did Maguire file an Affidavit of use in 1939 when he took over AOC? Since Maguire Industries had not used the trademark since March, 1944, it would be interesting to know when the trademark was last protected by the original AOC. Did Kilgore file in 1949? We do not have a record when these Affidavits were filed. Obviously, Thompson and Maguire were using the trademark continually from 1921 to 1944. But after that?

What about the "AUTO-ORD-CO" bullet trademark used by AOC on the first 5,000 or so Colt TSMG's? Other than Doug Richardson, who has been using this logo since late 1921,

The only available Affidavit filing is the 1984 dated one by Trast. But that would mean that the last date of Affidavit of Use application was 1964, if we go by the 20 year rule, or 1974, if we go by the 10 year rule. Did Numrich file in 1964? Did Trast file in 1974?

But the fact that the original AOC never transferred ownership after 1944, the trademarks, logos, and patents, while necessary to call a smg a THOMPSON, at least for legal reasons, I guess, it still does not allow Kahr in good faith to refer to themselves as the original AOC.

Edited by Arthur Fliegenheimer, 17 September 2008 - 08:22 PM.

  • 0

#490 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2952 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 September 2008 - 08:33 PM

Arthur,
I feel certain my work will remain the authority on the 1949 to 1951 time frame for many years to come. I am hopeful more information will surface, but I don't see it contradicting anything in my story.

You have some good questions about the Trademark. Seriously, I look forward to reading about your research. Please keep everyone informed as to your progress. I am sure the answer to all your questions is out there.

Irrespective of what you may have believed in the past, the ownership of everything Thompson transfered from Maguire Industries to Kilgore Manufacturing in 1949. Don't think Kilgore just copied the trademark logo from one of the guns they sold.

Phil,
I am glad you like Mr. Helmer's writings; the respect for his research, writings and opinion is something we both share. I was very fortunate to have access to his research material.

Continue to read my old postings on this subject. You will find a wealth of material that will educate you completely on the succession of the Thompson. The article in Small Arms Review is the current authority on this subject; a longer version will come soon.

I am only scanning your postings to see if you have any facts regarding this topic. I have noted your opinion.

My hope is you continue to purchase my future stories. If you are interested in another story, order the May 2008 issue of Small Arms Review.



  • 0

#491 PhilOhio

PhilOhio

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 5903 posts

Posted 18 September 2008 - 12:14 PM

QUOTE (TD. @ Sep 17 2008, 09:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Arthur,
...I feel certain my work will remain the authority on the 1949 to 1951 time frame for many years to come....
Phil,

...Continue to read my old postings on this subject. You will find a wealth of material that will educate you completely on the succession of the Thompson. The article in Small Arms Review is the current authority on this subject; a longer version will come soon...

..I am only scanning your postings to see if you have any facts regarding this topic. I have noted your opinion...

...My hope is you continue to purchase my future stories. If you are interested in another story, order the May 2008 issue of Small Arms Review...


TD,

You're on...especially with the comment about another long article coming out soon.

I find that first sentence of yours, which I quote above, to be a real stopper. It seems to be the essence of the debate, your determination to stand on utterly unsupportable claims regarding Thompson history and to write it, even when untrue.

I was already warming to the idea of doing my own major piece for publication, aimed squarely at the the matter of analyzing the process of a budding writer's attempt to turn his unsubstantiated opinions into historical fact and rigidly defend them. You bumped me off the fence.

TD, as of this date I "feel certain" that your "work", or more correctly your unsubstantiated opinions, will not "remain the authority on the 1949 to 1951 time frame for many years to come...". Certain. Collectors don't deserve to be misled any further.

I said earlier that I thought you were setting yourself up as a sitting duck.

Just this week, I noted something interesting in Kahr Arms advertising of their Thompson products. In some publications, they have emphatically claimed to be the "same" company which has always made the Thompson, and I believe they still do in SAR ads...although my current copy is out on loan; checking today. But in the American Rifleman, their ads only contain all sorts of inuendo and reference to Thompson history, but stop short of claiming to be the real AOC. Might it be that somebody on the NRA legal staff is not a believer in your "unbroken succession" theory, TD, and will not publish false advertising claims, forcing those drafting them to edit them? rolleyes.gif

Stay tuned, folks. This is just getting started.

Arthur,

I'm loving your research on the intellectual rights rules, vis a vis the bullet logo, etc. Keep it up. This sort of thing is at the heart of the broken succession reality.

  • 0

#492 inertord

inertord

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 392 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NE Ohio

Posted 18 September 2008 - 01:27 PM

In their September 2008 SAR Add, Kahr states: Auto-Ordnance: Original manufacturers of the world famous "Tommy Gun". They also use the "Thompson" Bullet Logo next to the "Kahr" Arms Logo.

I guess this can be viewed two ways. Are they stating a historical fact that Auto Ordnance was the original manufacturer, or implying that Kahr / Auto Ordnance as it exists today is the original manufacturer? I suspect that they are using the first to lead the reader to believe the second, in typical creative advertising terminology. More smoke and mirrors.

I am waiting for an add that imply's that Kahr is also linked to the manufacturing of M1 Carbines during WW2!
  • 0

#493 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3471 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 September 2008 - 02:35 PM

QUOTE (inertord @ Sep 18 2008, 02:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
In their September 2008 SAR Add, Kahr states: Auto-Ordnance: Original manufacturers of the world famous "Tommy Gun". They also use the "Thompson" Bullet Logo next to the "Kahr" Arms Logo.

I guess this can be viewed two ways. Are they stating a historical fact that Auto Ordnance was the original manufacturer, or implying that Kahr / Auto Ordnance as it exists today is the original manufacturer? I suspect that they are using the first to lead the reader to believe the second, in typical creative advertising terminology. More smoke and mirrors.

I am waiting for an add that imply's that Kahr is also linked to the manufacturing of M1 Carbines during WW2!


Would SAR print an article critical of Kahr's phony claimed association with the original AOC when Kahr is a valued advertiser? Does SAR check out false claims by advertisers before publishing their ads? Do they even care?

Edited by Arthur Fliegenheimer, 18 September 2008 - 02:36 PM.

  • 0

#494 Chromebolt

Chromebolt

    Long Time Member

  • Board Donor
  • 325 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 18 September 2008 - 03:20 PM

After reading all these related articles and replies, it seems some folks have researched this issue and others have criticized the research. I do agree with TD, the critical folks should provide additional research to shed more light on this topic. It's easy to criticize, and much harder to provide researched information.

This is just turning into a tit for tat rebuttal.

CB
  • 0

#495 Bridgeport28A1

Bridgeport28A1

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 973 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

Posted 18 September 2008 - 03:43 PM

We went from 502 posts last night to 494 this afternoon on this thread. Who's been deleting their posts?

Ross
  • 0

#496 colt21a

colt21a

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3637 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:arizona desert.
  • Interests:Whatever we can do in Life

Posted 18 September 2008 - 06:17 PM

my posts' mean nothing, but no deletion's on my end.i just like to read, then smirk,then do my own digging. it's too bad just about everything i ever dug up i buried again. to let some youngblood dig it all up again.too old and too many mile's to go back and research again...it's a young mans game.


enjoy life and enjoy a good brew.AND make the most of what you have left.

Ron

p.s and ask BILL HELMER about the typo error in his book. seems to be i'm the only one who ever found it. { and we had a good laugh about that 15 year's ago.

i'm glad he's doing a part two. his book and his friendship sent me on the Quest.... and i wish him long life and good health.
  • 0

#497 ron_brock

ron_brock

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 1506 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wolverine State

Posted 18 September 2008 - 06:44 PM

QUOTE (colt21a @ Sep 18 2008, 07:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
my posts' mean nothing, but no deletion's on my end.i just like to read, then smirk,then do my own digging. it's too bad just about everything i ever dug up i buried again. to let some youngblood dig it all up again.too old and too many mile's to go back and research again...it's a young mans game.


enjoy life and enjoy a good brew.AND make the most of what you have left.

Ron

p.s and ask BILL HELMER about the typo error in his book. seems to be i'm the only one who ever found it. { and we had a good laugh about that 15 year's ago.

i'm glad he's doing a part two. his book and his friendship sent me on the Quest.... and i wish him long life and good health.


Ron, I missed something in the post that never ends...is Bill Helmer writing a sequal to TGTMTTR?

Thanks,
- Ron
  • 0

#498 dalbert

dalbert

    Website Owner

  • Admin
  • 4387 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 18 September 2008 - 09:01 PM

QUOTE (PhilOhio @ Sep 12 2008, 10:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (Lancer @ Sep 11 2008, 05:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Phil, as usual makes very good points as did Arthur and Bob. I too remain unconvinced about the unbroken chain of succession.

I thought it might be interesting to start a poll on the topic but I couldn't think of a way to accurately describe what it is that TD is claiming. I guess, in my mind, this is the problem.


Lancer,

A couple weeks ago, I thought about doing a poll also. Then I realized that our collective opinions made no difference. The only thing that counts is the paper, the documentary evidence. Only facts make a difference. And the fact is that the documentation is not there. That is a fact, not an opinion. So we do not need a poll to show that no evidence exists to prove there has been an "unbroken succession". There is no need to disprove what is not there.


PhilOhio,

While your representation above about documentary evidence may indeed be a fact, it is a fact only in the narrow scope you choose to view provability of the succession argument. From your many posted assertions on the subject, it appears you will only be convinced if an original bill of sale is produced documenting all the details of a transaction involving the Thompson. (I'm not even sure if such a document were located that it would satisfy you.) While such a document may exist or not, if it does still exist, it is not necessarily something we can access. It would not be public information, nor would its existence change any of the overt actions evident in regards to Thompson succession over the years.

I’m going to look at this through the same lenses you are for a moment, and say that I agree with you completely. If you filter it all down to only being provable with an official succession document, you are correct. But that’s definitely not a reasonable standard to apply. The standard you apply fully ignores many facts involved in the Thompson product succession, because you will only accept one document that proves it all. Existence of such a document would be nice, but it’s not necessary to prove succession of the product.

For those who are now just joining this discussion, what we contend is that the succession of the Thompson extends from 1916 to the present day at Kahr. We are talking about the Thompson product which was and is a noted product in the marketplace, and has changed hands through time.

Some notes of reference to those who may not be completely familiar with the facts regarding succession, or the framing of the argument that we put forth:

Some members confuse this to be an argument for an unbroken use of the company name “Auto-Ordnance.” The name was revived by Numrich Arms, and really has nothing to do with the succession argument for the Thompson product itself. Kahr Arms owns the name “Auto-Ordnance,” and the Thompson logo trademark, and while some speculation and controversy exists around all this, it only distracts from the facts around Thompson succession.

This argument has nothing to do with the quality of product that was produced in West Hurley, or currently at Kahr. That simply has nothing to do with the current history of succession.

Phil, let me review some points you may have missed during TD’s presentation at Tracie’s last month. These are crucial for you to understand and contemplate, as they do speak directly to succession.

- TD’s article, as it was published in Small Arms Review, was reviewed prior to publishing by Cary Maguire, majority shareholder of Components Corporation of America. Cary is the son of Russell Maguire. He approved it as written. This is a very big deal. If you really consider this fairly, it should be the end of any contrarian speculation to succession. I will explore this further below…

- TD’s article was submitted to SAR over a year before it was published. Cary Maguire supplied some of the material that was used. Some of his pictures were edited from the article for length. The pictures came from his father’s (Russell Maguire’s) scrapbook, which Cary Maguire copied in full color for TD. A couple of these pictures were shown in the presentation, such as the one of Russell Maguire in front of the Maguire Industries company plane, and the one with Cary Maguire, his brother, father Maguire Russell, George Goll, and various police officers. Cary Maguire supplied the Willis cartoons and inside cover credit to the “Tommy” book that was featured in the SAR article. This was way before TD acquired another original “Tommy” book from the Willis heirs. My point here is that Cary Maguire took a substantial interest in TD’s article, supplied much content, and reviewed it before it was published. Really, consider that again….Cary Maguire took a substantial interest in TD’s article…he made contributions of never before seen material from his father’s estate….and he reviewed and approved the article before it was published. Again, this is a very big deal, and one that anyone who considers an opinion against succession must contend with. The article contains statements about succession, and notes the Kilgore use of the Thompson logo. One of the reasons Cary Maguire took an interest in reviewing the article, is he expressed some reservations about the manner in which his father was portrayed in Helmer’s “The Gun That Made The Twenties Roar.” TD also spoke to the CFO and Chief Legal Counsel of CCA, who vehemently assured him that CCA did not have any remaining interest in the Thompson. As TD mentioned in the presentation, TD’s perseverance on this point during the conversation with the CFO almost ended further discussion. But it did not, and TD’s efforts led to Cary Maguire contributing to, and approving the article. The Thompson is only a part of CCA’s corporate heritage. The Thompson was a product they sold off to Kilgore, who intended to manufacture and market it, a fact for which documentary proof exists, as well as the corresponding proof to support their reasons for not proceeding with the Thompson project as originally planned.

Now you can say what you want about how none of the above is official, notarized, filed in court, or otherwise documented in a form that you would accept, but it carries tremendous weight with me, as it should for the vast majority of those who are not Thompson succession conspiracy theorists. Again, keep the argument clear; we are talking about succession of the Thompson product from 1916 to the present. As you and others have argued repeatedly, you believe Maguire Industries did not sell off all of the Thompson, that they somehow retained rights to its intellectual property, or something... (Arthur still seems confused about the (nonexistent) patent issue, even though that was an argument he lost long ago.) Well, according to CCA, they sold the Thompson product. This is not only the opinion of the CCA CFO and Cary Maguire today, but it was the opinion as stated in the memoirs of Eugene Powers. Powers was a senior executive at Auto-Ordnance and Maguire Industries during WWII, and returned as President in 1950, when the company was failing financially, which was probably the main reason Maguire sold off the Thompson in 1949. Powers’ memoirs as they relate to the Thompson are not publicly published yet, but they do include an assertion that the Thompson was sold to Kilgore, and I have a copy if you would like to come and see it sometime. It is also supported by a letter to William J. Helmer dated January 13, 1964 from the former President of Kilgore Manufacturing Company who served when the transaction took place.

References to successive ownership of the Thompson are many. Some references are easy to find, while others took some detailed research to locate. Some of the research was done by Bill Helmer, and some was done by TD. With the exception of Arthur querying online regarding New York corporate business history, nothing substantive has been researched by PhilOhio or Arthur Fliegenheimer. Their participation in this discussion has been one of sideline commentary and target practice. I will say that Phil has maintained a much steadier focus and aim, while Arthur has been all around his own target and others, particularly recently.

I do want to say that I respect both PhilOhio and Arthur, and while we disagree on the subject of succession, I believe we all share a unique fondness for the TSMG, its attributes, and history, as do most on this board. We should probably just agree to disagree on this subject. It is a wonderful thing that we have the time and passion to discuss such an overall insignificant issue as this is to most people in the world. I consider Phil a friend, and know he has a vast amount of knowledge regarding the Thompson, in particular technical knowledge. I enjoyed interacting with Phil further at the show last month, and am grateful that he probably found the source of the feeding issue that my WH M1 suddenly developed. I hope to see him again at OGCA this weekend. Arthur, though he hides behind his moniker, has also been a source for many Thompson collecting facts, and I respect his knowledge in this area, and his furthering of overall Colt Thompson knowledge, in particular.

Now back to the subject of succession…

For those who have not seen it, you should look at the Kilgore sales flyer for the Model M1A1 Thompson Submachine Gun that was included in TD’s article. This is also a major fact that must be contended with by anyone who disputes succession. The Thompson became a new item to expand the product line of Kilgore. TD did much research in this area, speaking to every remaining Kilgore Ohio employee, an effort which included attending a Kilgore Ohio company reunion picnic. It’s pretty amazing that such an event was still in occurrence recently, while the company moved to Tennessee in 1961. He also toured the building where Kilgore housed the Thompson project.

Kilgore experienced a catastrophic event that prevented them financially from moving forward with their Thompson project, even though they had a project manager, had setup a production line for the Thompson in Westerville, and had a marketing plan for the Thompson. An explosion involving some of their military products on a ship in New Jersey drove a company decision to quickly reorganize and rename themselves, and to consolidate their assets in anticipation of lawsuits involving the death of over thirty people. The explosion also involved Hercules Powder Co. TD’s article in the September 2008 edition of Small Arms Review covers this subject in more detail.

Here’s where most people understand that Frederic A. Willis stepped in, and they are correct, but his involvement permeates the Thompson in more ways than his service as the leader of a “syndicate” of investors who acquired the Thompson from Kilgore.

Willis was a broadcaster at CBS during the 1930’s, and an executive with that company. He was also an Army reserve officer who received the Silver Star in World War I. In 1940, he was hired as a Vice President at the new Thompson Automatic Arms Company, headed by Russell Maguire. During this time, he developed an affinity for the Thompson, and helped ensure its success. His was a fondness he expressed in glorious written and illustrated form to his boss, Russell Maguire, by privately publishing the first book on the Thompson Submachine Gun, titled “Tommy.” It is a beautifully bound book with a sterling silver Thompson displayed under a clear dome on the front cover, and it provides a unique history of the weapon and its production up until 1943. Willis used his cartooning hobby to illustrate the book, as well as many familiar WWII period pictures, and some that have not yet been published elsewhere.

In the “Tommy” book, Willis had a choice. He chose to use the “T2” Thompson outline as a theme in the book, when he could have used the classic Thompson outline. Why did he do this? Willis was a forward thinker. He envisioned the company continuing to produce the Thompson in some form. This vision was also expressed within his cartoons for the ‘Tommy” book. While this is a circumstantial point, I believe that it substantially relates to his involvement with the Thompson product on two more significant occasions. Those occasions would have to wait several years, as Willis was called into the service of the OSS in 1943 until after the war ended.

One point that TD’s research uncovered was that when Maguire Industries decided to sell off the Thompson, they contacted Frederic Willis to do the deal. I believe Willis still demonstrated a passion for the future of the Thompson, and that’s why he became involved. Willis became the deal broker, and he found Kilgore as a buyer. After Kilgore’s misfortune, Willis again stepped in to broker a purchase and sale, which he and his other partners made to Numrich Arms of Mamaroneck, NY in 1951. At least one of his other partners was a former Auto-Ordnance executive named Teddy Hayes, the former boxing coach of Jack Dempsey. Willis admired the Thompson so much that he wrote a book about it, created many cartoons highlighting its significant history, and ensured it remained a viable business venture for prospective buyers on two occasions. Willis was well connected to the Thompson, and was an enabler for succession.

Once the Thompson was sold to George Numrich of Numrich Arms in Mamaroneck, NY, the company immediately set to advertising themselves as being the “Manufacturer of the Thompson Submachine Gun.” This was not a conspiracy, it was the truth. Legally, Numrich manufactured Thompson Submachine Guns. How they went about doing this is another subject that Arthur, in particular, likes to use as a distraction. It is well known that Numrich manufactured the TSMG’s by assembling receivers and spare parts they purchased as part of the overall deal from Willis. If Numrich wanted to just sell parts for the Thompson, like they did for countless other firearms, they would have been content with that. But they had purchased more than just the parts. As I stated, they immediately began advertising themselves as owning the TSMG, selling it, servicing it, and being a spare parts provider. They didn’t just do this once. They sustained their assertion as owner of the Thompson for decades, over and over again in their print advertising, and in their interviews for gun magazines in the 1950’s, 1960’s, and 1970’s. No one disputed this. This was not a conspiracy to make everyone think Numrich owned the Thompson. They owned the Thompson. They manufactured parts for the Thompson as needed, most notably barrels for the Thompson. They submitted a design to ATF for a semi-automatic Thompson in 1967, but the design was rejected. It took them seven more years to develop an approved design, which they took to market in early 1975. In the early 1970’s in West Hurley, NY, they also began manufacturing the fully automatic Model 1928’s. The rest is pretty well documented.

A U.S. Treasury Department letter to William J. Helmer dated January 17, 1967 indicated that, according to their records, Maguire Industries Inc. sold the ability to manufacture the Thompson to Kilgore Manufacturing Company of Westerville, OH in early 1949, and that Kilgore was a qualified dealer under the National Firearms Act.

Succession was the opinion of Savage Arms Corporation in response to an inquiry from William J. Helmer on September 10, 1963. They stated that Numrich owned and manufactured the Thompson for law enforcement, etc.

So, everyone needs to ask themselves upon what they base their opinion on this subject. Ask yourself if your opinion is based on all the information that has been consulted by TD during the preparation of his article. Ask yourself if you base your opinion on what others have stated in the past, and carefully consider just how much information they had access to in order to form their opinion. If your opinion does not include consideration of the following, then you are not fully informed, and may just be basing your opinion on what other, under-informed parties have put forth as fact. Some of the resources you must consider, that TD consulted during his research are as follows:

- The full set of correspondence (several hundred pages) accumulated by Bill Helmer during his 6-year, 1960’s study of the Thompson and its history, where he interviewed almost everyone still alive at the time who had been involved with the Thompson (Hardly anyone has seen these, yet they are one of the single greatest resources of Thompson Submachine Gun history in existence. – these documents were fully considered by TD in his article.)

- The contributions of Cary Maguire towards TD’s story, including Russell Maguire’s Thompson scrap book, and CCA’s assertion that they do not own the Thompson – I cannot emphasize enough how important his involvement is in the whole process that TD went about during the preparation of his article.

- The Eugene Powers biography, which provides a unique glimpse into the business workings of Auto-Ordnance, Maguire Industries, and the Thompson. (Hardly anyone has seen this, but it was fully considered during the preparation of TD’s article.)

- The Willis book “Tommy,” which gives us the basis to realize he was more than just a salesman. (Hardly anyone has seen this, either, but the contents were acquired by TD, courtesy of Cary Maguire)

- The Kilgore/H.P. White footnote in Helmer’s “The Gun That Made The Twenties Roar” regarding testing of the Thompson Autorifle. Most are unaware of it, and most don’t understand its significance. Kilgore was engaged in seeking a return on their large investment, and this was a subject that Helmer discovered during his research. TD expanded upon this research, and discovered that H.P. White was hired by Kilgore to setup a small arms test firing range.

Ask yourself these questions:

- Has the person whose opinion you may base yours upon really studied the resources as listed above

- Or, does the person’s opinion originate from things they have heard others say or write, who are definitely not as informed as TD became during the course of his research and preparation of the article. You simply cannot discount the overwhelming number of facts that exist to support succession, and that prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, in my opinion.

QUOTE (reconbob @ Sep 15 2008, 01:25 PM)
I do not believe Kahr has ever made, or has the ability to make, or
the licenses to make, or even wants to make a true full auto
"submachine gun". It just sounds good to say this.
Its hype. Its salesmanship. Its BS. It would not be correct or reasonable
for some present or future researcher to assert that this is documentation
or proof that Kahr manufactured full auto Thompson submachine guns.
And yet, perhaps 30 years from now when the trail is cold someone will
be doing just that...

Bob


Bob,

You don't have to wait 30 years. Kahr has manufactured at least 2 Thompson Submachine Guns. We're trying to get them to bring them to a show and shoot.

I'm not a big Kahr fan, but...

1. They have the ability to make...
2. They have the license to make...
3. They apparently want to make...(because they have made)...

The Thompson Submachine Gun

This is separate from the succession argument, but I have to set the record straight.

I do not argue West Hurley or Kahr quality, although I know Kahr is making a concerted effort to improve it. It will take some sustained consistency, however, to overcome the current quality track record. The work they performed on their "C" drum is an effort in the right direction.

The AO name issue is also a separate argument. There is no doubt that Kahr owns the trademark. Maybe you could have challenged it back when you thought it was an issue, and you had a business reason to do something about it. You chose not to do so, for whatever reason. I could put together a very good argument that Kahr has every right to the AO name, but I see it as a distraction from the core of the Thompson succession argument.

Only one entity has ever challenged Kilgore, Numrich or Kahr regarding the Thompson trademark and/or name, that I am aware of, and they decided not to further pursue the issue after their initial challenge, based on information that the company was able to provide them as a basis for their ownership. (I am saying this, because I am aware of it to be true, however I will not and cannot cite my source or any further details of the challenge. You may write it off as undocumented, as far as I'm concerned. This is not the same issue as the repro Crosby drum I will reference below.)

Ross,

The issue you mentioned with the Numrich vs. reproduction Crosby drums is a set of different circumstances. Numrich has not manufactured drums, to my knowledge, since they sold off AO and the Thompson to Kahr. Kahr was concerned that the newly manufactured repro Crosby's had "Thompson" on them, and that was the basis of their objection. I believe their objection resulted in the desired manufacturing changes, although Kahr's letter went to the extreme as far as requesting the cessation of manufacture, and collection of all repro Crosby drums that were sold, etc.

Arthur,

It's very interesting to see you quote WJH so often in your posts. He was very impressed with TD's work, and was one of the people who reviewed TD's article before it was published, in addition to Cary Maguire. Helmer has always sensed that there was something more to the Thompson succession story. WJH was so impressed with TD's article, that he wants to include a summary of it in a re-write of "The Gun That Made The Twenties Roar." This is a book project that he asked me to partner with him on, and has been in the works for over 2 years. I helped him to regain the rights to the book, as he had sold them off previously. When I mention I have a couple of other major projects in the works, the rewrite of TGTMTTR is one of them.

I would also like to add that TD is uniquely qualified in his opinion on this subject, which is a fact he does not discuss, however I can say that he is much more qualified than any of us participating in this debate to have a fully informed opinion on this type of business subject.

I don’t think that “railroader” could have imagined how his post could have taken on such a life of its own. This will be the last post in the “Replica” thread. I’m closing it, and as the board owner, am putting in the last word. For those who disagree with succession, we can agree to disagree. Move forward…

David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

  • 0

#499 buzz

buzz

    RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 1921 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 August 2014 - 09:38 AM

This is an interesting thread.

I think the legal status of WH Thompsons is irrelevant.

The legal continuity between the original pre-1945 AO company and the Numrich AO company doesn't matter from a gun collecting perspective.

It's not like Numrich took the original tooling and re-started production on a large scale for military and police customers.

Numrich re-started production decades later on a microscopic level for hobby gun owners. The work was done by local machine shops who (badly) reverse engineered parts.


Suppose I was to buy all the rights and trademarks to the AO company and start grinding out "new Thompsons" with my Dremel tool.

Per the logic of this thread, my Dremel Thompson would count as a continuation of the original production.

Ask about my extra-cost Rustoleum finish when ordering!


A sematic quibble about legal continuity is just not enough for anyone to seriously think of WH guns as "original thompsons".

I'm glad that Numrich made another 3,000 Thompsons for people to burn ammo with, but nobody is ever seriously going to think of them as original Thompsons. Not even the Korean War commemorative edition with the gold plated trigger!


As a comparison, consider that the original Hamilton watch company was purchased by a watchmaker (Swatch) and Hamilton watches are currently being made on a huge scale with superb swiss ETA movements. It's an awesome watch but no watch collectors are interested in them or consider them "original" or a continuation of the original Lancaster, PA production.

Unlike the Hamilton watch story, consider the fact that Numrich wasn't even a gun maker and the WHs were jobbed out and badly made.


Anyway that's my take on it.

Edited by buzz, 30 August 2014 - 09:47 AM.

  • 0

#500 timkel

timkel

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Donor
  • 1003 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:NRA Patron member
    Atlas Shrugged

Posted 30 August 2014 - 10:14 AM

tag to read later....25 pages...whew..


  • 0